Corroborated testimony of injured eyewitnesses sustains conviction regardless of relationship to the deceased.

The appellants challenged the judgment dated 28.02.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, convicting them for murder and related offenses

The prosecution alleged that due to a long-standing land dispute, on 09.09.2019, the appellants (armed with lathis) abused the complainant party and assaulted Sharda Kurre (PW-03) on her head

When the deceased, Sanjay Kurre, attempted to take his daughter (PW-01) to the police station to lodge a report, the appellants intercepted them and repeatedly struck the deceased on the head with lathis, causing fatal injuries

Medical evidence, including the postmortem report (Ex. P/14), confirmed the death was homicidal due to cranio-cerebral damage

The trial court sentenced both appellants to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and varying terms for other offenses

1. Whether the death of the deceased, Sanjay Kurre, was homicidal in nature?

2. Whether the appellants acted with common intention to commit murder and attempt to murder, and whether the testimony of related and injured witnesses was reliable?

The Court applied Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 294, 506 Part-II, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding murder, attempt to murder, hurt, wrongful restraint, obscenity, criminal intimidation, and common intention

It relied on the evidentiary principle that the testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal, citing Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar

It further applied the criteria for appreciating injured eyewitness testimony established in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023), which holds that minor discrepancies do not discard the whole evidence if the broad substratum is intact

The Court affirmed the homicidal nature of death based on the postmortem report and testimony of Dr. Jitpure (PW-15), which detailed extensive skull fractures and brain injury

Regarding authorship, the Court emphasized that PW-03 (Sharda Kurre) was an injured eyewitness whose presence was indisputable and whose testimony carried "inbuilt guarantee of truthfulness"

Her account was corroborated by three other eyewitnesses (PW-01, PW-04, PW-06)

The defense’s plea of a "sudden quarrel" or "free fight" was rejected because the incident occurred in two distinct phases: an initial assault at the house followed by a premeditated interception of the deceased on his way to the police station

The use of lathis on vital parts (head) and the coordinated nature of the attack established common intention under Section 34 IPC

The Court dismissed objections regarding the non-examination of independent witnesses, noting that in residential disputes, the testimony of related witnesses is natural and reliable if consistent

The Court held that the testimony of the injured and related eyewitnesses was cogent and fully corroborated by medical evidence

The Holding affirmed the convictions and sentences under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 323/34, 341, 294, and 506 Part-II IPC

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to serve their remaining sentences